SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 4

Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory Validity and Reliability Evidence of Problem Behavior Evaluation Scale

Problem Davranışları Değerlendirme Ölçeğinin Klasik Test Kuramı ve Madde Tepki Kuramı Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Kanıtları

Eylem Dayı(Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi)0000-0003-1020-5846
Çetin Toraman(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5319-0731
Nevin Güner(ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9135-6429
Arzu Doğanay Bilgi(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-3330-8303
Hasan Köse(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI ESKİŞEHİR)0000-0002-0923-3711
Pages
557–577
Publication Date
2025-12-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that the PBES had a high level of reliability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: In educational environments, problem behaviors, including many related to non-cooperation with school and classroom rules, are defined as those that threaten students' safety, negatively affect their social interaction, and distract teachers and students from academic activities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 590 teachers participated in the study to examine the scale's reliability and validity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that the PBES had a high level of reliability.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Problem davranış · ölçek geliştirme · geçerlik ve güvenirlik klasik test kuramı

Abstract

Introduction: In educational environments, problem behaviors, including many related to non-cooperation with school and classroom rules, are defined as those that threaten students' safety, negatively affect their social interaction, and distract teachers and students from academic activities. Identifying problem behaviors that negatively affect the educational environment is important in controlling and reducing these behaviors. Method: This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the Problem Behavior Evaluation Scale (PBES) evidence, which will evaluate students' problem behaviors based on teachers' observations and perceptions, according to classical test theory and item response theory. We prepared the scale items by conducting a literature review and finalizing them by assessing expert opinions. A total of 590 teachers participated in the study to examine the scale's reliability and validity. Based on the collected data, we examined exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, item characteristic curves, item information functions, and item discriminations according to item response theory. We determined the scale's reliability evidence with Cronbach's Alpha, McDonald's Omega, and marginal reliability coefficients. Findings: As a result of the analyses, we determined that the PBES is a valid scale with 18 items and two factors. We determined the reliability of PBES by Cronbach's Alpha and McDonald's Omega coefficients according to classical test theory and the marginal reliability coefficient according to item response theory. The results showed that the PBES had a high level of reliability. As a result of the analysis, the first factor consisted of 10 items, and the second factor consisted of eight items. Discussion: With its 18-item and two-factor structure, the PBES is a proper, simple, easy-to-respond scale. The scale can be used in primary schools in Türkiye to assess students' problem behaviors based on teachers' observations and perceptions. It can also provide support for scientific studies on problem behaviors.

Özet

Giriş: Eğitim ortamlarında, okul ve sınıf kurallarına uymamakla ilişkili pek çok davranışı kapsayan problem davranışlar, öğrencilerin güvenliğini tehdit eden, öğrenciler arasındaki sosyal etkileşimi olumsuz etkileyen, öğretmeni ve öğrencileri akademik etkinliklerden uzaklaştıran davranışlar olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Eğitim ortamını olumsuz etkileyen problem davranışların belirlenmesi, bu davranışların kontrol edilmesi ve azaltılması açısından önemlidir. Yöntem: Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin gözlemlerine ve algılarına dayalı olarak öğrencilerin problem davranışlarını değerlendirme amacına hizmet edecek Problem Davranışları Değerlendirme Ölçeğinin (PDDÖ) klasik test kuramı ve madde tepki kuramına göre geçerlik ve güvenirlik kanıtlarını incelemektir. Ölçeğin geliştirilmesi sürecinde öncelikle alanyazın taraması yapılarak ölçekte yer alacak maddeler hazırlanmış, ardından uzman görüşlerinden yararlanılarak ölçeğe uygulama öncesi son hali verilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlik güvenirlik kanıtlarını incelemek amacıyla yapılan çalışmaya 590 öğretmen katılmıştır. Toplanan veriler üzerinde açıklayıcı faktör analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve madde tepki kuramına göre madde karakteristik eğrileri, madde bilgi fonksiyonları, madde ayırt edicilikleri incelenmiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirlik kanıtları ise Cronbach Alpha McDonald’s Omega ve marjinal güvenirlik katsayılarıyla belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Yapılan analizlerin sonucunda PDDÖ’nün 18 madde ve iki faktörlü geçerli bir ölçek olduğu belirlenmiştir. PDDÖ'nün güvenirliği klasik test kuramına göre Cronbach Alpha ve McDonald's Omega katsayıları, madde tepki kuramına göre ise marjinal güvenirlik katsayısı ile belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar PDDÖ'nün yüksek güvenirlik düzeyinde olduğunu göstermiştir. Analiz sonucunda birinci faktör 10, ikinci faktör sekiz maddeden oluşmuştur. Tartışma: PDDÖ’nün 18 madde ve iki faktörlü yapısı ile karmaşık olmayan, kolay yanıtlanabilir kullanışlı bir ölçek olduğu söylenebilir. Ölçek, Türkiye’de ilkokullarda öğretmenlerin gözlem ve algılarına dayalı olarak öğrencilerin problem davranışlarının değerlendirilmesi amacıyla kullanılabilecek ve problem davranışlara ilişkin yürütülecek bilimsel çalışmalara destek sağlayabilecektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dayı, E., Toraman, Ç., Güner, N., Bilgi, A. D., Köse, H. (2025). Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory Validity and Reliability Evidence of Problem Behavior Evaluation Scale. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 4, 557–577. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1538042

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (89)

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The child behavior profile: I. Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(3), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.3.478
  2. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The Child Behavior Profile: II. Boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 6- 11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.2.223
  3. Achenbach, T. M., & Ruffle, T. M. (2000). The Child Behavior Checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies. Pediatrics in Review, 21(8), 265-271. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.21-8-265
  4. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (1998). Etkili öğrenme ve öğretme [Effective learning and teaching] (2nd ed.). Kanyılmaz Matbaası.
  5. Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2005). Classroom climate. In S. W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of School Psychology (pp. 88-90). Sage Publications.
  6. Akkök, F., Aşkar, P., & Sucuoğlu, B. (1986). Öğretmen gözlem formu el kitabı [Teacher observation form handbook]. Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları. Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014). A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2014.05.003
  7. Alter, P., Walker, J. N., & Landers, E. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ challenging behavior and the impact of teacher demographics. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 51-69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42900226
  8. Aman, G. M., Singh, N. N., Stewart, A. W., & Field, C. J. (1985a). The Aberrant Behavior Checklist: A behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(5), 485- 491.
  9. Aman, G. M., Singh, N. N., Stewart, A. W., & Field, C. J. (1985b). Psychometric characteristics of the aberrant behavior checklist. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(5), 492-502.
  10. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness of fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155- 173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170
  11. Aydos, E. H., Uysal, H., & Akman, B. (2014). Sınıfa Uyum Öğretmen Gözlemi-Kontrol Listesi’nin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması [Teacher Observation Of Classroom Adaptation-Checklist Turkish adaptation study]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(2), 809-824. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/22599/241434
  12. Bakanlar Kurulu Kararı [Council of Ministers Decision](2002). İstatistiki bölge birimleri sınıflandırması [Classification of istatistical territorial units]. 28/08/2002 Tarihli ve 2002/4720 Sayılı Kararname https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2002/09/20020922.htm
  13. Baker, J. A., Clark, T. P., Maier, K. S., & Viger, S. (2008). The differential influence of instructional context on the academic engagement of students with behavior problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1876-1883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.019
  14. Bentler P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  15. Bradshaw, C. P., & Kush, J. M. (2020). Teacher observation of classroom adaptation-checklist: Measuring children’s social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. Children & Schools, 42(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdz022
  16. Briesch, A. M., Chafouleas, S. M., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2016). Direct behavior rating (DBR): Linking assessment, communication, and intervention. Guilford Press.
  17. Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6),733–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.6.733
  18. Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Briesch, A. M., & Chanese, J. A. (2007). Generalizability and dependability of direct behavior ratings to assess social behavior of preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087952
  19. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Christ, T. J. (2009). Direct behavior rating (DBR) an emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(4), 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409340391
  20. Chafouleas, S. M., Briesch, A. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Christ, T. J., Black, A. C., & Kilgus, S. P. (2010). An investigation of the generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) to measure academic engagement and disruptive behavior of middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 48(3), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.02.001
  21. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  22. Charles, C. M. (2011). Building classroom discipline. Pearson.
  23. Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040802591530
  24. Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 693-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802206700
  25. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2013). Test development (A. Kan, Trans.). In E. Tavşancıl (Ed.), Psychological testing and assessment: Introduction to tests and measurement (pp. 233–277). Nobel Publishing. (Original work published 2010)
  26. Çengel, M., & Türkoğlu, A. (2015). Öğrenciler tarafından algılanan sınıf iklimi ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Classroom climate perceived by students scale: A validity and reliability study]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(4), 1240-1257. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eku/issue/5467/74233
  27. Daniels, B., Briesch, A. M., Volpe, R. J., & Owens, J. S. (2021). Content validation of direct behavior rating multiitem scales for assessing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 71- 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426619882345
  28. DeVellis, R. F. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme, kuram ve uygulamalar [Scale development, theory and applications]. (T. Totan. Trans.; 3. Ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık. (Original work published 2011)
  29. Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carlson, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004). Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the Connected Classroom Climate Inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21(3), 264-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409359988
  30. Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16, 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
  31. Erol, N., Arslan. B. L., & Akçakin, M. (1995). The adaptation and standardization of the Child Behavior Checklist among 6-18 year old Turkish children. In J. Sergeant (Ed.) Eunethydis: Europian Approaches to HyperkineticDisorder. Zurich: Fotoratar, 97-113.
  32. Erol, N., & Şimşek, Z. (1998). Türkiye ruh sağlığı profili: Çocuk ve gençlerde ruh sağlığı (Erol, N., Kılıç, C., Ulusoy, M., Keçeci, M., Şimşek, Z.) Türkiye ruh sağlığı profili [Türkiye mental health profile]. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Projesi Genel Müdürlüğü.
  33. Evans, I. M., Harvey, S. T., Buckley, L., & Yan, E. (2009). Differentiating classroom climate concepts: Academic, management, and emotional environments. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 4(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522449
  34. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE Publications.
  35. Flannery, W. P., Reise, S. P., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). An item response theory analysis of the general and academic scales of the self-description questionnarie II. Research in Personality, 29(2), 168-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1010
  36. Ford, T., Hayes, R., Byford, S., Edwards, V., Fletcher, M., Logan, S., Norwich, B., Pritchard, W., Allen, K., Allwood, M., Ganguli, P., Grimes, K., Hansford, L., Longdon, B., Norman, S., Price, A., Russell, A. E., & Ukoumunne, O. C. (2019). Training teachers in classroom management to improve mental health in primary school children: the STARS cluster RCT. Public Health Research, 7(6), 1-150. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr07060
  37. Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086159
  38. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
  39. Hambleton, R K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publication.
  40. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological test: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399291
  41. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://academicpublishing. org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1224
  42. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  43. Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115
  44. Kanay, A., & Girli, A. (2008). Analyzing the relations between adaptive behaviors, self concept and academic achievements of elementary scholl students aged between 9-13 years old with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, 23, 184-191. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/deubefd/issue/25428/268284
  45. Kaner, S., & Çiçekçi, A. U. (2000). Gözden geçirilmiş davranış problemleri kontrol listesinin Türkçeye uyarlanması [Adaptation of the revised behavior problems checklist to Turkish]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 2(4), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000048
  46. Kaner, S., Büyüköztürk, Ş., İşeri, E., Ak, A., & Özaydın, L. (2011). Conners Öğretmen Dereceleme Ölçeği- Yenilenmiş/Uzun: Türk çocukları için psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi [Conners Teacher Rating Scale–Revised/Long Form: Evaluation of Psychometric Properties for Turkish Children] Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 14(3), 150-163.
  47. Kellam, S. G., Branch, J. D., Agrawal, K. C., & Ensminger, M. E. (1975). Mental health and going toschool: The Woodlawn program of assessment, early intervention and evaluation. University of Chicago Press.
  48. Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001564
  49. Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing, a practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage. Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031
  50. Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Teacher observation of classroom adaptation-checklist: Development and factor structure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175609333560
  51. Kremer, K. P., Flower, A., Huang, J., & Vaughn, M. G. (2016). Behavior problems and children’s academic achievement: A test of growth-curve models with gender and racial differences. Children and Youth Services Review, 67, 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.003
  52. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
  53. Leaf, P. J., Schultz, D., Keys, S., & Ialongo, N. (2002). The Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation- Checklist (TOCA-C). Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence.
  54. Lewis, T. J. Newcomer, L. L., Trussell, R., & Richter, M. (2006). Schoolwide positive behavior support: Building systems to develop and maintain appropriate social behavior. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 73-95). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  55. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.103.3.391
  56. Merrell, K. W. (1993). Using behavior rating scales to assess social skills and antisocial behavior in school settings: Development of the school social behavior scales. School Psychology Review, 22(1), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1993.12085641
  57. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  58. Milli Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim (2022-2023) [National Education Statistics Formal Education] https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=508
  59. Nash, P., Schlosser, A., & Scarr, T. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of disruptive behaviour in schools: A psychological perspective. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 21(2), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2015.1054670
  60. Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14- 0008.1
  61. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  62. Ødegård, M., & Solberg, S. (2024). Identifying teachers’ reactive strategies towards disruptive behavior in classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 145, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104627
  63. Özbay, Y. & Şahin, M. (2000). Empatik Sınıf Atmosferi Ölçeği (ESATÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validitv and reliabilitv of Intraclassroom Empathic Attitude Scale (IEAS)]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(19), 104-113. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hunefd/issue/7819/102747#article_cite
  64. Pas, E., Cash, A., O’Brennan, L., Debnam, K., & Bradshaw, C. (2015). Profiles of classroom behavior in high schools: Associations with teacher behavior management strategies and classroom composition. Journal of School Psychology. 53(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.005
  65. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis. Sage Publications. Pierce, C. (1994). Importance of classroom climate for at-risk learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 37-42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27541952
  66. Quay, H. C., & Peterson, D. R. (1996). Revised behavior problem checklisit. Professional manual.
  67. Robinson, S. L., & Ricord-Griesemer, S. M. (2006). Helping individual students with problem behavior. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 73-95). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  68. Ross, R., Starrett, A., & Irvin, M. J. (2023). Examining the relationships between kindergarteners’ demographic characteristics and behavior problems across geographic locale. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(8), 1427-1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01391-6
  69. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002437
  70. Sağkal, A. S., Kabasakal, Z. T., & Türnüklü, A. (2015). Sınıf İklimi Envanteri'nin (SİE) Türkçe'ye uyarlanması [Turkish Adaptation of the Connected Classroom Climate Inventory (CCCI)]. İlköğretim Online, 14(4), 1179-1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.30422
  71. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351- 380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899983
  72. Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63(2-3), v–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166220
  73. Somersalo, H., Solantaus, T., & Almqvist, F. (2002). Classroom climate and the mental health of primary school children. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56(4), 285-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480260242787
  74. Sprott, J. B. (2004). The development of early delinquency: Can classroom and school climates make a difference? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(5), 553-572. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.46.5.553
  75. Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55(2), 293-325. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02295289
  76. Sucuoğlu, N. (2003). Sorun davranışlar kontrol listesinin Türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi [Examining the psychometric properties of the Turkish form of the problem behavior checklist]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 18(52), 77-91. https://psikiyatridizini.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=21399&tammetinvar=yes
  77. Sucuoğlu, B., & Kargın, T. (2010). İlköğretimde kaynaştırma uygulamaları: Yaklaşımlar, yöntemler, teknikler [Inclusive practices in primary education: Approaches, methods, techniques]. Kök Yayıncılık.
  78. Şeker, H., & Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme [Developing measurement tools in psychology and education]. Nobel Yayıncılık.
  79. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education.
  80. Toraman, Ç., & Özdemir H. F. (2023). Evren ve örneklem. A. İlğan ve A. Ekinci (Ed.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in education] in (pp.135-167). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  81. Vieira, A. L. (2011). Interactive LISREL in practice, getting started with a SIMPLIS Approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18044-6
  82. Volpe, R. J., & Briesch, A. M. (2012). Generalizability and dependability of single-item and multiple-item direct behavior rating scales for engagement and disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 246- 261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087506
  83. Volpe, R. J., & Briesch, A. M. (2015). Multi-item direct behavior ratings: Dependability of two levels of assessment specificity. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3), 431-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000115
  84. Volpe, R. J., & Briesch, A. M. (2016). Dependability of two scaling approaches to direct behavior rating multiitem scales assessing disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Review, 45(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-1.39-52
  85. Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics, from bivariate through multivariate tecniques. Sage Publications. Werthamer-Larsson, L., Kellam, S., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-- Revised (TOCA-R) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t31163-000
  86. Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3),187-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.x
  87. Yukay-Yüksel, M. (2009). Okul sosyal davranış ölçeklerinin (OSDÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanması [Adaptation of school social behavior scales (SSBS) to Turkish]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9(3), 1605-1650. https://tr-scales.arabpsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/okul-sosyal-davranis-olcekleri-b-formuolumsuz-sosyal-davranislar-toad.pdf
  88. Zhao, Y. (2008). Approaches for addressing the fit of item response theory models to educational test data. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amberst]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/220010848?fromopenview=true&pqorigsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
  89. Akkök, F., Aşkar, P., & Sucuoğlu, B. (1986). Öğretmen gözlem formu el kitabı [Teacher observation form handbook]. Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları. Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014). A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2014.05.003